Anderson County mayor answers lawsuit filed by sheriff

Friday

Jul 26, 2013 at 1:00 PM

Anderson County Mayor Terry Frank has officially responded to a salary lawsuit filed against her last week by Anderson County Sheriff Paul White, following an ongoing dispute over the Sheriff Department’s salaries.

by Beverly Majors

Anderson County Mayor Terry Frank has officially responded to a salary lawsuit filed against her last week by Anderson County Sheriff Paul White, following an ongoing dispute over the Sheriff Department’s salaries.

Specifically, the sworn petition was filed by White after Frank refused to sign a salary agreement for the sheriff’s 200-plus employees, a step that puts in motion a hiring issue pertaining to the Anderson County jail.

According to earlier information, the disagreement stems from the annual pay and benefits for 36 jailers for the new jail addition at a cost of $1.1 million. The money would be in addition to the $6.6 million already budgeted for the Sheriff’s Department.

The county mayor’s response to the sheriff’s suit states she “respectfully opposes” the petition, stating that White’s petition request “is founded neither in fact nor law, but is instead a poorly advised budget tactic that seeks to force the respondent (Frank) beyond the authority granted to her by law and the citizens of Anderson County.”

Frank’s response also states the Sheriff Department’s budget is “grossly out of proportion to the needs and overall budget for a county this size.”

According to the county mayor, the Anderson County Sheriff Department’s budget has nearly doubled to more than $11 million since 2006 and is more than 45 percent of the general fund budget and 97.7 percent of all property tax collected.

During the Anderson County Commission’s budget deliberations in June, commissioners indicated that since part of the jailers will be employed for only a half-year, the budgeted money will take care of the pay and benefits for all 36 this fiscal year.

Such a move would involve an agreement with county and federal officials and the jail being certified to handle federal inmates.

Frank addresses several points in her response including those pertaining to the housing of federal and state prisoners, which she says is improper to do through the sheriff’s budget.

“Much of the justification for the additional positions is based upon duties assumed by petitioner (White) to house state prisoners and anticipated federal prisoners, neither of which are statutorily mandated functions and neither of which entitle the petitioner to a fee from the county,” Frank’s response states.

Frank said she is under no legal obligation to sign the letter of agreement and the letter is inappropriate and contrary to law. She asked that the Circuit Court judge dismiss the petition and that the court deny the request for additional staffing and other relief.